Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

The Popular Vote Nonsense

Phillip Coffman

We are still deluged by the media, talking heads, and pundits who attempt the discredit Trump’s amazing win for the Presidency with assertions that Hillary’s popular vote tally of about a 2.5 million vote plurality is somehow is an injustice and a flaw in our system of government.

Fortunately the wisdom of our founding fathers prevails. In their wisdom they knew the Republic could not stand if the affairs of the nation were dictated by a few highly populated urban areas. In their case, New York, Boston, and Philadelphia.

Their establishment of the Electoral College was a brilliant insight that has again shown the extent of their God given wisdom.

A quick look at County election maps (brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/) clearly shows the will of the citizens of the United States of America in the last election. Eighty Four percent of all Counties in the United States went to Donald Trump.

The mantra of one man, one vote has never been the tenet of our Republic.

But more importantly, let’s look at the facts to see why.

Hillary did win the total popular vote.

Using New York Times figures, the numbers are as follows:

US total vote: HILLARY: 65,844,610

US total vote: TRUMP: 62,979,636

US Total plurality: Hillary: 2,533,416

Does that mean she won and should be President? Absolutely not! Look at the map again. She won only 16 percent of the Counties in the entire United States.

Trump won 306 Electoral votes and Hillary won only 232 Electoral votes.

How did this happen?

The reason why the popular vote is not the law of the land and why it is so dangerous is best seen in the following example:

The results on the vote in California which I am regrettably, a citizen, illustrate the problem with the popular vote.

California’s total vote went to Hillary with a plurality of approximately 4.3 million votes.

Hillary: 8,753,788

Trump: 4,483,810

Difference: 4,269,978

The total difference between Hillary and Trump for the entire nation was 2,533,416 votes.

California alone accounted for 169% the total plurality for the entire nation.

But that is not the whole story!

Looking at the State of California as a whole, the greater Los Angeles Area gave Hillary a plurality of 1,445,546 and the greater San Francisco Bay Area gave Hillary a plurality of 1,365,820. A total plurality of 2,811,820 from the urban sprawl of essentially two metropolitan areas from one ultra-liberal State. The course of the entire nation would be dictated by two metropolitan areas (each with significant welfare and crime problems of their own). One hundred and eleven percent of the so called popular vote plurality is accounted for by two urban areas of one nearly bankrupt State out of the entire nation!.

More evidence of blatant fraud in politics affecting us all. Conceivably, the fraud discovered in the counties and States named below would be designed to deliver the State to the Party committing the fraud in a national election. An ancillary study should be done to establish which Party carried those Counties / States in the last 20 years or so of voting history.

(PAC)

Yes, Really: 141 Counties Have More Registered Voters Than People Alive

David Steinberg On August 27, 2015

The Public Interest Legal Foundation, of which PJ Media’s J. Christian Adams is president, has done admirable work in convincing the country that voter fraud is a widespread problem and an embarrassment to the country. We need clean voter rolls and Voter ID now, and an end to this cavalier attitude towards securing our fundamental right.

Scores of Counties Put on Notice About Corrupted Voter Rolls

(Alexandria, VA) – August 27 The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) has put 141 counties on notice across the United States that they have more registered voters than people alive. PILF has sent 141 statutory notice letters to county election officials in 21 states. The letters are a prerequisite to bringing a lawsuit against those counties under Section 8 of the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

The letters inform the target counties that it appears they are violating the NVRA because they are not properly maintaining the voter rolls. The NVRA (also known as Motor Voter) requires state and local election officials to properly maintain voter rolls and ensure that only eligible voters are registered to vote. Having more registrants than eligible citizens alive indicates that election officials have failed to properly maintain voter rolls.

Lawyers for PILF have previously brought lawsuits against other counties that failed to clean up voter rolls after receiving a notice letter. The notice letters also seek access to public information about voter roll maintenance efforts. The United States Justice Department also can bring lawsuits to fix corrupted voter rolls but has failed to do so during the Obama administration.

“Corrupted voter rolls provide the perfect environment for voter fraud,” said J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel of PILF. “Close elections tainted by voter fraud turned control of the United States Senate in 2009. Too much is at stake in 2016 to allow that to happen again.”

The Public Interest Legal Foundation will monitor responses by the 141 counties and remedial clean-up efforts. Federal law requires that a party sending a notice letter wait 90 days before filing a lawsuit.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), (formerly Act Right Legal Foundation), is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity. PILF exists to assist states and others to aid the cause of election integrity and fight against lawlessness in American elections. Drawing on numerous experts in the field, PILF seeks to protect the right to vote and preserve the Constitutional framework of American elections.

Despite a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon, the media seem to be putting most of their attention on two candidates for their respective parties’ presidential nominations next year. Moreover, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump each make their own party nervous.
If next year’s election comes down to Clinton versus Trump, a lot of people may simply stay home in disgust.
When we are this far away from the official start of the primary election season, we can usually just say, “It’s still early days.” Many a front runner this early in the process ended up out of the running by the time the party conventions were held, and totally forgotten by Election Day.
That is the way it usually is. But that is not likely to be the way it will be this time.
This is Hillary Clinton’s last hurrah. It is now or never for her. And the Democrats have nobody comparable as a vote-getter to put in her place.
Even if an investigation finds Mrs. Clinton guilty of violating the law in the way she handled e-mails when she was secretary of state, the Obama administration is not likely to prosecute her. And President Obama can always pardon her, so that the next administration cannot prosecute her either. So Hillary doesn’t even have to take a plea bargain.
Someone with a sense of shame might well withdraw from the contest for the Democratic Party’s nomination, now that public opinion polls show that most people distrust her. But since when have the Clintons ever had a sense of shame?
On the Republican side, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has pointed out that if Donald Trump can continue to get 20 or 25 percent of the Republican voters on his side, he can build up a formidable lead of delegates in winner-take-all primaries.
It will not matter if 60 percent of the Republican voters turn against him, if that 60 percent is split up among all the other Republican candidates, with none of those candidates getting more votes than Trump.
Sometimes financial backers can withdraw their support and force a stubborn candidate to drop out of the race. But Trump has enough money of his own to stay in the race as long as he wants to, even if that ruins the Republicans’ chances of winning the 2016 elections.
Ironically, the Republicans have a much stronger set of presidential candidates than usual to choose from this year. But the media obsession with Trump means that even the best of these candidates are not likely to get enough exposure for most voters to get to know much about them.
Governors with superb records — such as Bobby Jindal in Louisiana and Scott Walker in Wisconsin — may not have much name recognition on the national scene. And certainly the little sound bites in the so-called “debates” are not likely to tell the voters much.
This is not just the candidates’ problem. With this country facing historic dangers, both internally and internationally, we urgently need to find someone with depth, insight and courage as the next President of the United States.
But, with the media obsessed with Donald Trump’s show biz talents and persona — and covering everything he says, does or might do, 24/7 — how are the voters to sort through the large number of Republican candidates to find a couple that are worth getting to know more thoroughly?
It will be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. And never was finding that needle, the right leader, more important for the nation.
Internally, we are so polarized over immigration that our current “leaders” have left our borders wide open to terrorists from around the world, rather than take the political risks of offending voters on one side of this issue or offending voters on the opposite side. Instead, they risk American lives by their inaction.
Internationally, our “leaders” have written a blank check for our most dangerous and fanatical enemy — Iran — to get both nuclear bombs and the missiles to deliver them. And the Obama administration, with a track record of huge shameless lies, offers us its reassurances.
We had better find that needle in a haystack, someone who can salvage a desperate situation. Flamboyant rhetoric is not enough.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM
________________________________________
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

A friend of mine sent me a copy of this article by Ben Stein. Ben is one of the great intellects of our time and noted for his no holds-barred analysis of important subjects.

As I told my friend, the situation being addressed is a disgusting example of the totalitarian state we have fallen into due to our own desire to appear tolerant. This guy Sterling appears to be a wealthy old fool who I wouldn’t wipe my feet on, But being old, wealthy, and stupid is not a crime. If he has one ounce of courage he will sue and force these actions by the NBA all the way to the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, to use an old flying term, we have passed the point of no return. Our universities and the media have indoctrinated generations into the “It takes a village” doctrine, that invokes a feel-good dependency on liberal thought and government with no enduring values or need to think, excel or achieve any kind of actualization. We suffer individually and the impact on the Country and the economy is devastating. God help us!

Please carefully read Mr. Stein’s article. Think about it and discuss it with your friends. The issue is not the stupid statements of a wealthy old man, the issue is whether, in a free society, we have the freedom to think, believe, and reason as we choose and that freedom will prevail and not totalitarianism. Don’t accept the false values of the status quo merely to be deemed acceptable.. Racism is despicable regardless of the color of the racist. Don’t let fear hoodwink you into the sacrifice of freedom to fall in with the “me too” crowd. Resist the “thought police” with every fiber of your being. What we are experiencing from the modern liberals and the media is a repeat of Kristallnacht without the overt violence…..Yet!

Without the freedom assured by the Constitution, we will surely succomb to the despotism of totalitarianism!

PAC

An Article by Ben Stein

Thursday

So, here I am, still in Denver, a lovely city, but too high up.

Herewith, a few lowly thoughts about Mr. Donald Sterling, his private conversations with his mistress, the media lynching of him, and the actions of the NBA sanctioning him severely for those private thoughts and comments.

“It’s a slippery slope,” said billionaire sports club owner Mark Cuban when asked about the sanctions. I am not sure what he meant, but he’s right. Sterling is being punished for his thoughts. He is being punished for actions that make the NBA look bad even though they were not actions at all, but thoughts.

As far as I have been able to determine, the NBA code of conduct allows sanctions for actions. I don’t see anything that allows sanctions for thoughts. So, where does the authority for that come from?

Next, if we are to sanction private thoughts and comments by NBA owners, shouldn’t we put all of their mistresses and wives and friends and children under oath and ask about any comments they have ever made in private? Why is only Mr. Sterling being singled out for retribution for his thoughts? Why not start wholesale, Vishinsky-like Stalin show trial interrogation of everyone close to an NBA owner to find out what he has said that might be objectionable? Isn’t the punishment of Mr. Sterling just an in terrorem bill of attainder against one man otherwise?

So, while we’re at it, let’s see what actions other professional team owners have done that might embarrass their league. They are all rich so probably they have girlfriends. We know that one in the Midwest was just arrested for a DUI and drug possession. Nothing at all was done to him. Not a thing.

Are we in a world where a non-criminal thought or comment is punished harshly but an actual deed — an arrest for DUI and drug possession — is not punished ? Can that really be happening?

And while we are on this witch-hunt about racist comments, why stop at NBA owners? How about media personalities? I know some big names that have made some startlingly racist comments in their earlier days. Should we go after them, too? Why should they be allowed to sit in judgment of everyone else?

And why is it suddenly a crime to harbor racist thoughts? Note, I deplore racism and have fought against it all of my life. But when did it become actionable by a self-regulating body with the power to deprive a member of immense amounts of money to do so because of his thoughts? Actions, of course. But THOUGHTS?

And what of Mr. Obama’s pastor and his spectacularly anti-white comments? What about Minister Farrakhan? Is it allowed to make racist remarks about one racial group but not about others? What about the black comedians I see on TV at night with their endless mockery of whites? Is that allowed? Why?

Mr. Cuban is right. Once we start punishing people on the basis of thoughts, we are in real trouble. There is no end in sight that is compatible with a free society. And, again, why isn’t there some outcry about Ms. Stiviano and her illegal taping of a private conversation?

Next, Mr. Adam Silver, the head of the NBA. Hailed as a hero. Brave. Decisive. I don’t get it. He was just bullied into taking the path the media demanded. He made a rush to judgment without the slightest thought to the ramifications of his actions in a Constitutional democracy. He’s not a hero. A hero would have insisted on taking some time to study the consequences of his actions. But he did what the media demanded. So he’s a hero to them.

And meanwhile, out there in America, the black person’s world is in chaos. Wildly higher school dropout rates than among whites. Demolished family structure. Terrifyingly higher arrest and incarceration rates than whites. A drug plague. These are catastrophes and the media ignores them. But one lone old rich drunk who talked too much to his mistress… oh, we’ll nail him and things will be great in the world of blacks.

I am telling you, we are in a bad way here. I hate racism but I love freedom and we are throwing it away with both hands.

About the Author

Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes “Ben Stein’s Diary” for every issue of The American Spectator.

A dear friend recently sent me a copy of the quote this Posting discusses. I hope you find it as profound as I did

Quote of the Century:

Some possess the vocabulary to sum things up in a way we can understand. This is a quote from the former Premier of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus.

Václav Klaus is a distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

From 2003 until March 2013, Klaus was the President of the Czech Republic. Earlier, in 1987, he was a researcher at the Institute of Economics of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. He became Czechoslovakia’s Minister of Finance in the “government of national unity” in 1989. In 1990, he co-founded the Civic Democratic Party in Czechoslovakia. In 1992, he became the first democratically elected Prime Minister of the Czech Republic.

Václav Klaus studied at the Prague School of Economics, where he currently holds professorship in finance.

The interesting thing about this quote is the clarity of thought from the eyes of an unbiased view of an “outsider”. We Americans often exhibit the trait that we are superior to the rest of the world and their views and opinions don’t count. Nothing could be more false.

It is refreshing that intelligent outsiders thoughtfully watch America and its condition and have the prescience to see what’s happening in our decline as the most powerful nation on earth.

Here is Klaus’ quote.

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

Wow!

Let’s examine the factors behind Václav Klaus’ observation.

The truth of old statements. We have met the enemy and he is us. The basis of modern progressive or new liberal philosophy is a strong, welfare-oriented, and interventionist state. Government and those empowered to run it are the source of all power. Entitlements are the largess to control the people. Initiative of individuals is discriminatory and fosters inequality. Private enterprise, outside the control of the government, cannot be tolerated so it is regulated and taxed to the point that it is not free, but rather merely a part of the apparatchik with the appearance of being free.

Since a thinking electorate, one that analyzes and evaluates conditions, is a danger to the welfare state, the system of education must be controlled to assure that the people acquiesce to welfare. The state of education in America has long evinced the success the destruction of education in America. The Obama administration recently announced an initiative to extend the purview of the Department of Education from K through 12 to add pre-school programs to their authority. This further divorces parental control and the ability to inculcate foundational values of the family and assures the indoctrination of the values of the state to our children and voters of the future.

What Klaus referred to as the “confederacy of fools” is the entitlement class and those that are willing to sell their future for the various “entitlements” which are like the sirens of Homer’s Odyssey. Just welfare and unemployment alone constitutes approximately 48% of the electorate. Add to this the crush of illegal aliens and the necessity of their acceptance of all kinds of government “aid” and laughably loose government sponsored voter laws and the future of socialism in America is assured. Anyone that believes that welfare entitlements, the control of education, most of the so-called environmental protection initiatives, emigration policy, and the theft of health care in the United States is about compassion and increasing the economic and personal condition of the individual properly belongs to the “Confederacy of Fools”.

This essay will be posted on my website http://westernyankee.com and will be further elaborated upon it in the near future.

My thanks to Václav Klaus for the great service to America he has rendered with his comment on our sorry state of affairs. I personally believe that we have passed the point of no return but will resist the destruction of this great nation with every fiber of my existence.

This is a great pearl of wisdom by Jeff Foxworthy. We need more straightforward thinking like this. Unfortunately, these actions are not because of idiocy, but the socialist ideology that’s behind it all.

A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots

By Jeff Foxworthy

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally —

you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

#######
If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion —

you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

#######

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government —

you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

#######

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt —

you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

#######

If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat —

you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

#######

If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched —

you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

#######

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more —

you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

#######

If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable —

you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

#######

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones —

you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

#######

If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn’t be found —

you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

#######

If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage —

you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

#######

If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government —

you might live in a nation that was founded by Geniuses but is run by idiots.

The true meaning of Christmas is not about a winter holiday, or even a family time of peace and goodwill. It is the celebration of a profound historical event in which Almighty God carried out His plan of salvation for those that He chose before the foundation of the world. The prophet Isaiah told of this event 700 years before it happened in the little town of Bethlehem. Here’s what God said about it as He spoke through the writers of scripture:

26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35And the angel answered and said unto her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:26-35)

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. 20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:18-25)

1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. 2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) 3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. 4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) 5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.6And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 7And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.8And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. 10And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. 12And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. 13And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 14Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. 15And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. 16And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. 17And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. 18And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. 19But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. 20And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them. (Luke 2: 1-20)

Christmas trees will lose their needles and gifts their luster. Fond memories will fade. But the true meaning of Christmas will last for eternity. The Lord has sent a Savior for His people. Jesus Christ is that unspeakable gift! You can learn the whole story of God’s Salvation Plan, with the help of the Holy Spirit, by reading (hearing) His inspired word, the Holy Bible.17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Rom.10:17)

The Constitution of the United States, whose adoption we celebrate every Sept. 17, clearly lists the powers of each branch of the national government.

Let’s take a look at what Barack Obama, like any president, is empowered to do and see if it squares with his actions. In Article II, Section 1, he is sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Section 2 names the president as commander in chief of the armed forces, grants him the power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate and to appoint ambassadors, federal judges, cabinet officials and other federal officers. In Section 3, the president “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

In his two years and nine months in office, Barack Obama has compiled a spectacular record of non-compliance with the Constitution. Here are just some of the ways his administration has failed to execute the laws while using raw, unauthorized power.

The Defense of Marriage Act – On Feb. 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. announced that, under Obama’s direction, the Justice Department would no longer defend DOMA, which is under attack in several federal courts. DOMA, which was passed by overwhelming majorities in Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, defines marriage for all federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman, and allows states under the Full Faith and Credit clause not to be forced to recognize unions from other states that do not comport with their state marriage laws. Forty-five states have moved to strengthen their marriage laws, with 30 enacting constitutional amendments. Obama, who has played coy with the marriage issue while aggressively promoting the homosexual agenda, is violating his oath of office to appease the gay lobby.

The 15th Amendment – Under Obama, the Justice Department has effectively become a race-based enforcement unit. After New Black Panther Party members were caught on tape intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008, the Justice Department declined to defend the convictions, and thus sent the message that baton-wielding thuggishness on Election Day is no big deal. Former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams, who laid out the case before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, described the administration’s dismissal of charges as “lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law.”

Illegal Immigration – The Obama administration has ignored the illegal actions of “sanctuary cities” and instead sued the state of Arizona in July for enforcing federal law. Then, in August, the administration announced a new policy that, in effect, ends enforcement of illegal immigration providing the illegal alien meets the requirements of the DREAM Act, a bill that Congress failed to pass. So, Obama is ignoring current federal law while creating rules based on a law that never passed.

Cap and Trade – In 2010, the Senate rejected a sweeping environmental bill that would have created a massive federal carbon regulation system. Despite this, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would treat carbon dioxide (the air we breathe out) as a pollutant, and begin cracking down on America’s businesses and power plants. The EPA has become a law unto itself. The Obama Administration also has ignored a federal judge’s ruling that it acted illegally in prohibiting new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Obscenity Laws – The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has ignored federal laws against selling obscene materials, prosecuting only a handful of cases. Even though the law is clear and courts routinely hand down convictions, U.S. attorneys don’t bother to enforce the law anymore given the direction from the top. The result is that the Internet is awash in illegal obscenity and even mainstream hotels peddle obscene materials via pay TV.

The Fifth Amendment – The Constitution guarantees that no one is deprived of their property without “due process of law” or without “just compensation.” The National Labor Relations Board’s absurd order to Boeing not to open a newly built $750-million Dreamliner facility in right-to-work South Carolina because unions in Boeing’s home state of Washington object violates that guarantee. Even liberal New York Times columnist Joseph Nocera commented: “Seriously, when has a government agency ever tried to dictate where a company makes its products? I can’t ever remember it happening.”

The First Amendment – The NLRB struck again this year, declaring two Catholic universities — St. Xavier University in Chicago and Manhattan College in New York — not sufficiently “religious.” If the holdings stand, the schools may see the NLRB assert jurisdiction and rope the faculty and employees into a union election.

While ignoring laws that he is obligated to enforce, Obama has added other duties that would leave America’s Founders scratching their heads. As columnist Don Feder notes:

“Right out of the gate, there was his salaam to the Saudi king and his declaration in the course of a 2009 speech at Cairo University that; ‘I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.’ That’s in the Presidential-Responsibility-To-Fight-Negative-Stereotypes-Of-Islam section of the Constitution.”

More frightening is Obama’s heavy-handed seizure of the nation’s healthcare system and ObamaCare’s unconstitutional mandate for everyone to purchase health insurance. Nowhere, not even in the much-abused Commerce Clause, does the Constitution give the government the right to force citizens to engage in commerce. If ObamaCare is upheld, government bureaucrats can pretty much order us to do anything they want.

This list, which could be longer, should include Obama’s failure as commander in chief to lead our armed forces with honor. Can you imagine George Washington’s or Gen. George S. Patton’s response to the Obama administration’s doctoring the results of a troop survey, leaking misleading “findings” to the press, ignoring strong opposition by combat troops, and ramming through a policy of homosexualizing the armed forces? This violates 235 years of tradition in the world’s finest military.

Paraphrasing Ted Koppel’s comment about the Ten Commandments, the Constitution is not a set of suggestions. The Constitution’s enumerated powers and limitations ensure maximum liberty in a free republic.

When the chief enforcer shows such profound contempt for the Constitution, he needs to be reminded that no one is above the law. Not even The One.

This is a reprint of an excellent interview of a White House Insider, who needless to say must remain anonymous. It was written by Ulsterman In Issues on May 3, 2011. In my opinion it explains the delays in the news release on a late Sunday evening by the administration and had all the ear marks of trying to manage the news to put the best spin on the President. Your comments are invited.

Note: This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been “overruled” by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is further clarification of the Insider’s insights surrounding that event.

Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?

A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president. I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?

A: Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of. Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives.

Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy. Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act.It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated – he was that frustrated. Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.

What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.”

It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr. Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him.

What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault.

This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates.

The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order.

At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order. This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett’s office, and was then followed up by President Obama.

This abort order was later explained as a delay due to weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been acceptable for the mission. A storm system had been in the area earlier, but was no longer an issue. Check the data yourself to confirm. Jarrett, having been caught off guard, was now scrambling to determine who had initiated the plan. She was furious, repeating the acronym “CoC” and saying it was not being followed.

This is where Bill Daley intervened directly. The particulars of that intervention are not clear to me beyond knowing he did meet with Jarrett in his office and following that meeting, Valerie Jarrett was not seen in the West Wing for some time, and apparently no longer offered up any resistance to the Osama Bin Laden mission. What did follow from there was one or more brief meetings between Bill Daley, Hillary Clinton, a representative from Robert Gates’ office, a representative from Leon Panetta’s office, and a representative from Jim Clapper’s office. I have to assume that these meetings were in essence, detailing the move to proceed with the operation against the Osama Bin Laden compound. I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States.

There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military.

When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.” The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold. Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already “up to speed” on the operation.

A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day’s events before the president was. The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants. What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates. The president’s role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room. At the conclusion of the mission, after it had been repeatedly confirmed a success, President Obama was once again briefed behind closed doors. The only ones who went in that room besides the president were Bill Daley. John Brennan, and a third individual whose identity remains unknown to me. When leaving this briefing, the president came out of it “…much more confident. Much more certain of himself.” He was also carrying papers in his hand that quite possibly was the address to the nation given later that evening on the Bin Laden mission. The president did not have those papers with him prior to that briefing. The president then returned to the war room, where by this time, Leon Panetta had personally arrived and was receiving congratulations from all who were present.

In my initial communication to you of these events I described what unfolded as a temporary Coup initiated by high ranking intelligence and military officials. I stand by that term. These figures worked around the uncertainty of President Obama and the repeated resistance of Valerie Jarrett. If they had not been willing to do so, I am certain Osama Bin Laden would still be alive today. There will be no punishment to those who acted outside the authority of the president’s office. The president cannot afford to admit such a fact. What will be most interesting from here is to now see what becomes of Valerie Jarrett. One source indicated she is threatening resignation. I find that unlikely given my strong belief she needs the protection afforded her by the Oval Office and its immense powers to delay and eventually terminate investigations back in Chicago, but we shall see.

Easter is the most sacred observance for Christians. It is the observance of the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

But why and what does it mean?In the New Testament of the Bible, (1Cor 15:21-24) it is explained. “21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.”

In the beginning, Adam, the first man, rejected God when he disobeyed God and from that time, man and all mankind, became sinful. “ 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Rom 3:23)”. ” THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; (Rom 3:10)”. That means you and me!

Man cannot become righteous on his own because of his sinfulness, so God gave His Son, Jesus Christ, as payment for our sins. Not because we have any merit or right to that payment but because for God’s own purposes and according to His perfect will and plan, He selected some for salvation from the beginning of time (Eph 1:4) (2 Thes 2:13) and gave them to Christ for His own. We can’t earn salvation, it is a free gift from the Lord (Rom 6:23). He will call His own, and they will follow His voice (John 10:27). As man, we can’t understand this, and think it unfair, but who are we to judge the Creator of the Universe? God tells us He is sovereign and He will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy (Rom 9:15)

Christ died and arose again. So shall His own at that great and glorious day when we finally ascend to God’s heavenly domain to be with Him forever and ever.

Pray God that you too, might hear His voice (Ro 10:17) and receive His gift of salvation.